←back to thread

300 points pseudolus | 10 comments | | HN request time: 0.912s | source | bottom
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[] No.44410806[source]
> I heard one answer more than any other: the government should introduce universal basic income. This would indeed afford artists the security to create art, but it’s also extremely fanciful.

Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high. It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more. Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.

replies(31): >>44410825 #>>44410866 #>>44410867 #>>44410916 #>>44411075 #>>44411231 #>>44411300 #>>44411331 #>>44411377 #>>44411383 #>>44411390 #>>44411522 #>>44411551 #>>44411588 #>>44411793 #>>44411818 #>>44412810 #>>44413214 #>>44413504 #>>44413995 #>>44414020 #>>44414102 #>>44414213 #>>44414713 #>>44414846 #>>44415180 #>>44415597 #>>44415836 #>>44416489 #>>44416737 #>>44422633 #
eru ◴[] No.44410916[source]
> [...] a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high.

What economic inequality would you deem small enough?

And why do you care about inequality, and not eg the absolute livings standards of the least well off? We can 'solve' inequality by just destroying everything the rich have, but that won't make anyone better off.

Btw, the absolute living standards of all members of society, including the least well off, have never been better. And that's true for almost any society you care to look at on our globe. (Removing eg those currently at war, that weren't at war earlier.)

replies(12): >>44410945 #>>44410948 #>>44410992 #>>44411081 #>>44411415 #>>44411614 #>>44412062 #>>44412259 #>>44412291 #>>44412373 #>>44412671 #>>44414457 #
WarOnPrivacy ◴[] No.44410992[source]
> What economic inequality would you deem small enough?

I'd like the one small enough that I won't die from my (treatable) first major medical event due to being unable to fund 100% of treatment costs.

I'd also like one small enough that me and the kids didn't spend most of the 2010s in hunger-level poverty.

That'd be a start.

replies(1): >>44411050 #
eru ◴[] No.44411050[source]
Nothing of what you said has anything to do with equality at all. It's about the absolute level of prosperity of yourself (and presumably everyone else).

So if everyone got 10x richer overnight, but the top 1% got 1000x richer, that would increase inequality by any reasonable metric, but it would help with the benchmarks you mentioned.

replies(3): >>44411402 #>>44411434 #>>44418257 #
1. ascorbic ◴[] No.44411402[source]
If absolute prosperity is what matters, how is the US the richest country in the world, while being pretty much the only one where medical bankruptcy is a thing?
replies(3): >>44411722 #>>44412698 #>>44426423 #
2. eru ◴[] No.44411722[source]
The US isn't the richest country in the world (per capita). What makes you think so? However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita.

And in any case, I'm saying absolute prosperity of individual people matters. Not the average per capita absolute prosperity of a country.

So people who go into medical bankruptcy in the US are obviously not individually rich. And I hope you and me agree, that if you could find a way to make them better off, that would be a good thing?

Whereas if you found a way to make them worse off by 20%, but make Mr Zuckerberg worse off by 50%, that would not be advisable, even if it technically decreases inequality.

replies(4): >>44412142 #>>44412148 #>>44414465 #>>44418282 #
3. ascorbic ◴[] No.44412142[source]
It's the richest country in absolute terms, and the richest per-capita if you exclude small countries.

As a side note, it really shouldn't be possible to edit comments two hours after they've been posted and after they've had replies. Particularly without showing any indication of that.

4. voidhorse ◴[] No.44412148[source]
No one is suggesting to "make Mr Zuckerberg worse off".

The inequality problem is about access to material resources. Money is just an abstraction. No one is seriously suggesting to refuse zuckerberg access to good things on principle or to just diminish and not redistribute his wealth, that's preposterous.

The point is that access to capital is access to resources. The people that hoard capital necessarily end up hoarding important resources and they use this imbalance to then extract further capital from others and further their position, thus in turn gives them power. The problem is all about bringing more balance to this situation so that we avoid a return to feudalism in which a handful of people have control over all the resources and power and everyone is is basically just beholden to their whims.

replies(1): >>44412343 #
5. eru ◴[] No.44412343{3}[source]
How does 'hoarding' capital look like? What do you mean by that?
6. bigfishrunning ◴[] No.44412698[source]
In poorer countries, instead of medical bankruptcy, there just isn't medicine available. The poor in sub-saharan africa are not receiving first class government funded medical care.
replies(1): >>44413597 #
7. simonask ◴[] No.44413597[source]
This is a total red herring. We're not talking about sub-Saharan Africa. As Americans who want to fix your country, you should be looking at countries with similar standards of living, such as every single European country. You can even pick the rich ones, like the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, or Germany.

The alternative to the current situation in the US is not abject poverty.

8. metabagel ◴[] No.44414465[source]
> However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita.

Better to use the median, because the average is heavily skewed by the ultra-rich.

9. WarOnPrivacy ◴[] No.44418282[source]
> However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita.

Because it is very expensive to live in America.

10. marcusverus ◴[] No.44426423[source]
Medical bankruptcies are vastly overstated.[1] And while the US may be unique in our exposure to medical debt, we're doing much better than other developed countries in terms of overall household debt, which would seem be a more useful metric if you're concerned about the impact of debt on prosperity.[0]

[0] https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-debt.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30793926